Talk:Queue for the lying-in-state of Elizabeth II

Requested move 26 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move; with the arguments on each side roughly equal in strength we determine consensus by seeing which arguments had the greatest level of community support. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Queue → Queue for the lying-in-state of Elizabeth II – It's now been 9 months since the last RM request and the Queen's death, and it's obvious that the first thing people will think of when hearing "the queue" nowadays is not this particular queue- in hindsight the article title was very much a product of recentism. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 14:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, and I'm shocked that this title was in use to begin with. Certainly not the primary topic at this point in time, if it ever was.  WP scatter  t/c 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Full endorsement. Killuminator (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - potential confusion with non-notable queues that are not on Wikipedia, including at least one at Wimbledon (sport being tennis) that was made possible because of stronger security. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as this is the common name and there's no significant competition as |The_Queue_(Abdel_Aziz_novel)|The_Queue the traffic for the rival uses is negligible. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But we can't just look at other things with the exact title "The Queue". "The queue" is an extremely generic term. It should probably redirect to Queue, let alone being the title of this page.  WP scatter  t/c 22:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is The Queue not Queue and the use of the definite article is a significant difference. See The Ashes, for example.  No evidence has been presented that this title is confusing our readers in any way or that this is not the topic they are looking for.  The evidence I have presented indicates that the current title is fine.  Making the title a long and arbitrary phrase instead seems likely to make it more difficult for our readers as it's not the common name. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing a cricket match with worldwide notability whose history dates back to the 1800s to a flash-in-the-pan media craze from a year ago? I don't buy it. Giving it such a generic title was clear WP:RECENTISM.  WP scatter  t/c 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has loads of articles like The Ellipse or The Hat, where most people won't have heard of it. The presence of the definite article is enough for WP:PRECISION, to show that it's about a specific notable thing with that name. There is not, at present, any other entity (let alone a more commonly-recognised one) known as "The Queue". Belbury (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. This was not moved last time because of the mountain of evidence that this was the primary topic for the term "The Queue" and that "The Queue" is this event's WP:COMMONNAME, no evidence has been presented to show that has changed. Searching Google for "The Queue"-Wikipedia the entire first page and but the last two entries on the second page are for this event (the other two are the dictionary definition of "queue" and a random sentence from a 1988 Russian novel, so clearly not relevant to primary topic status). Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISION/WP:CONCISE - as with The Ashes, I think there's "sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" when its capitalised. The point made about "the first thing people will think of when hearing" the phrase seems weaker in text, that there's a difference between overhearing someone say "I joined the queue" and reading the written statement "I joined The Queue". --Belbury (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a common word.  Wikipedia's audience is global, and not necessarily hip to parochial nicknames for local events. Walrasiad (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please can you explain how any of that has any relevance to the article titling policy, the common name for this event or the primary topic for "The Queue"? Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Article titles have to be recognizable to readers. This is not the common name for this topic.  That is just a local nickname, restricted to local usage, unrecognizable to anybody that is not British. Walrasiad (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is evidence presented above and in the previous RM that demonstrates this is the common name and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. Regarding "not recognisable to anyone that is not British", firstly titles have to be relevant to those slightly familiar with the topic not everybody from all parts of the world so it's not relevant, it's also not true - 1 minute on Google found it used by CNN, Washington Post and Le Monde. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those articles are momentary news articles with zero longevity, not encyclopedic articles that are meant to last. Yet even all of them have context in their titles (e.g. "The queue for Queen Elizabeth, the queue for lie-in-state, etc.).  Wikipedia article titles have to stand alone.  This RM proposal is exactly adding the context that makes it recognizable - "Queue for the lying-in-state of Elizabeth II" - just like the titles of the very articles you are citing.  So you are proving the RM's case.  Thank you. Walrasiad (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose An argument to move should be based on RSs; "it's obvious" doesn’t cut the mustard.—Aquegg (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and other arguments above.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per arguments above, unless another instance of something with this name appears in future, this is the primary topic. Bob talk 13:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISE. "The Queue" is simply too vague of a title for this subject. Also per WP:THE starting an article title with "The" is generally discouraged. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While it's certainly possible this article needs a name change on other grounds, the latter point doesn't hold up - prevailing use in The Queue's sources include the definite article. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is this problematic when it's unambiguously the primary topic when The dress, The Ashes, The Abbot, The Abdication, The bush, The cream, The Gallows, The Gambit, The Man and countless others exist without issue despite being equally potentially "too vague", beginning with "The" and being both primary topic and the subject's common name? Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * About half of these are the titles of works, which is different (and you should have italicized them). Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it is NOT common name. It is NOT recognizable. Nobody in the world knows it as that.  They know there was a queue to see the Queen Elizabeth II lying-in-state back in 2022.  But they don't refer to it by some cute parochial nickname. Article title needs to be clear to readers. Is that really so hard to understand?  We want readers to find this article.  There is no reason to make its title obscure and unrecognizable.  Walrasiad (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is correct then you should be able to provide some evidence to back it up that is stronger than the evidence presented that this is the common and recognisable name. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that no reliable sources have covered this queue since it was a media frenzy– they have had no need to. If you google "The Queue" and click on news, absolutely none of the results from the last several months are about this particular queue. There are a decent number about the Wimbledon queue (which was fairly recent) as well as some about various other queues. News articles last year not describing which queue was being discussed because it was obvious from context then, does not mean that the general definition of "the queue" now is the topic of this article. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 11:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Vague waves towards evidence that may or may not demonstrate things that are irrelevant don't make your case. You need to present actual evidence that the common name of the subject of this article is not "The Queue" or that of all the encyclopaedic topics called "The Queue" that this is not the primary topic, and that evidence need to be stronger than the evidence presented above that shows those statements are true. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The descriptive title proposed above - a queue for the lying-in-state of Queen Elizabeth II - is how it is commonly referred to.  There is NO article about this that doesn't refer to "lying-in-state" or Queen Elizabeth.  Whereas most articles even during the frenzy, don't use the term "The Queue" (capitalized as if it were a proper name).  Not even the British press. BBC, Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, Spectator, Telegraph, Evening Standard, Daily Mirror. Express, Sky News, Cambridge News, etc.  Walrasiad (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support the descriptive title. I think Walrasiad's most recent comment is good evidence. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Primarily for WP:SURPRISE reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom - this isn't The Ashes. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support or alternative name the alternative being The Queue (Queen Elizabeth II). I do think this is an example of Recentism and there are likely examples of queues that were larger in terms of numbers of people or length of wait, neither of which the article claims The Queue was exceptional in.  If it were exceptional in numbers or wait time, then we might consider the current title, but that is not in evidence.  (P.S. I came here evaluating for close and found it as a potential 'no consensus', so I thought I would weigh in rather than closing.) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a viable search term - the proposed change seems unlikely to actually be searched by anyone - if there is a change, Ceyockey's is probably the logical one. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with your logic here. The proposed title is precise, concise and natural. If someone were searching this I can't really think of anything else they would type without thinking it was known simply as "The Queue".  WP scatter  t/c 14:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is precise, I don't see how it is concise or natural, especially compared to Ceyockey's or the status quo. I've had non-involved individuals mention the queue, or "Queen Elizabeth's queue" but never this, nor do I see it as a recurring title in sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's concise because it describes exactly how much it needs to. "Queen Elizabeth's queue" is not descriptive enough of the event, even if it is generally recognizable right now. And it's natural in the sense that this is the phrase you would use to describe the event. False or misleading statements by Donald Trump isn't "natural" in the sense that it's not in common usage verbatim, but it's the most natural way to describe the subject. As the proposed title is here.  WP scatter  t/c 13:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's how I would describe it, and description isn't the primary goal - someone finding the article they're looking for is the primary goal, and I believe this phrasing would impair that. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the alternative titles proposed so far would impair people finding the topic because they fail WP:COMMONNAME, and most also fail WP:RECOGNISABLE. "Queue to see the lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II" is the only thing I've seen that is b both accurate and descriptive, but that woefully fails WP:CONCISE, is overly precise and doesn't come close to being the common name. In short, nothing suggested comes close to being superior to the status quo. Iff something changes in the future and "The Queue" is no longer the common name or primary topic, it can be changed at that point but for that's WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Precise and descriptive. – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirecting "The Queue" to "Queue"
I've just reverted a change in target for The Queue to Queue on the premise that this revision will impact (likely) hundreds of links and people following them from other articles. The can be done, but I personally would prefer to see some effort to "unburden" "The Queue" so that most such links lead to this article rather than taking the clicker to a dab page. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, I've restored the redirection of The Queue. There were two templates and a dozen or so individual articles that needed updating, but now there isn't anything pointing at The Queue, all revised to point here.  Thank you, Autowikibrowser. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)